All Comments (136)

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/musical/g908/

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/musical/g908/

dcweh wopgxzdck byzpqh qkbnimw gdwh symaojdrv jstl

I think that Muslims should stop talking to people so myopic that they can only see the 3000+ people killed during 9/11 (of whom I am related to a few) and sit and wring their hands about American victimization.

I don't see anyone in our mainstream press reporting the Iraqi body count. People forget Haditha like they forgot My Lai because our notion of who we are simply means we CAN'T do that kind fo stuff. Insular American sit with their heads in the sand and don't realize that EVERYONE not just Muslims despise the US for its arrogance and just plain lack of education, lack of historical knowledge. Go to France, go to Italy, go to South America. Truth is, we are barbarians and do exactly what we claim others are doing...note the torture debate, note the mass killings, note the targeting of civilians with our cluster bombs.

In every forum and about every question asked about Muslims and Islam, it seems to bring out the worst bigots, the inquisition, the KKK, those people who simply cannot and will not view Muslims as people....

Muslims are just people like the rest of you. Yes, there are bigots and fundies just like you. And they fail to see others' humanity just like you. But not all Americans are the same, not all white people are the same, just like not all Muslims are the same. So rather than write something here as a way of "acting out" against the Muslim that you fear so much, why don't you go read a book, talk to a real person, and then come back with one, only one iota of intelligence as opposed to simple hatred and racism. Then we can talk.

eric cartman is someone i saw on the television machine. i have one in my home.
and why im quoting him?

isnt it obvious? i do what i want!

Who is eric cartman and why are you quoting him?

ill take it as a compliment that you are paying such minute attention to what i respond, or dont respond to.

i probably didnt respond if they were posted anonymously-
i give little attention to anonymous opinions or posts, often completely skipping them
i may be alot of things, but quiet isnt one of them.

as for commenting on a blog- well-

what? are you the blog police?

to quote eric cartman- i do what i want!

Victoria you write:

"cream also rising in the form of high caliber manners."

Why are you jumping into a post when it is not addressed to you? Better check with Miss Manners -but in case you don't know -its RUDE.

Further if you are so anxious to comment on this blog -check out the postings on Islam and Violence. I've noticed you've made no comments on both the London Mosque videos and the Iran police and woman's Hijab.

You are anxious to say: Islam is a religion of peace, but grow quiet when that peace is extended only to those who cease to think freely.

Peace to you, Victoria.

i think you were misunderstanding- tyranny and vitriol are not equal parts but 2 separate issue- so of course theyre not dealt with in the same way-

how do you "educate" tyranny? no one would suggestsuch a thing, nor did the poster.

we are commanded to speak out against tyranny, wherever it occurs- ifwithin our own ranks- of course it must be spoken out against- if from above in the power structure- there also.

as for vitriol, or the poisonous misinformed ramblings of the bigoted towards islam- borne out of fear and ignorance-

yes, of course the way to combat misinformation is with information-
ignorance with education.

im doing it on these boards all the time, i have never tried to censor anyones opinion or even used the mildest of verbal violence towards them.

i have no comments on the beliefs of others, no vitriol expelled at them, no denigration of their beliefs or persons.

it is not necessary to disparage another to express my own truth.
as you so aptly put, cream rises to the top-the cream also rising in the form of high caliber manners.

while you were making an analogy to card playing, te statement two-fold refers to the double pronged nature of the attacks on islamic doctrine-
from the one side, extremist literalists who misinterpret their religion as an excuse to cover their own political agendas,

on the other hand, extremist literalists (fundamentalist, i.e. bushies and neocons) who misinterpret OUR religion as an excuse to cover their political agendas.

certainly there was no mention of giving up at all.

"Moderate Muslims, like myself, find ourselves waging a two fold battle."

In the game of life, you play the hand you're dealt. It's a little early to fold. A reshuffle is going on as we type and post. Old enemies are revealed and new alliances are made. Truth like cream rises to the top.

"Not only must we speak out against the tyranny of this violent minority, but we must also speak out against the vitriol that is sent our way by those in the West."

Tyranny and Vitriol. Which can be educated and set aside? Please remember nothing is solved by increased censorship and violence. Nothing.

I'll close by answering one of my questions with another question.

Does "real power" correlate with freedom in a man's life, his community and society or control over that man's life, his community and society?

political pundits have been using the term "lame duck" to refer to, in particular, the last 2 years of a president when he is in his second term
since the eisenhower administration-
wikipedia is not a dictinary-

gaby- possibly i didnt notice the islamic eyes-
i dont believe the idea is to polarize one against the other, but is intended to walk a mile in anothers shoes.

From the link provided by anon#2:(May 5, 2007 6:24 PM)

"A lame duck is an elected official who loses political power or is no longer responsive to the electorate as a result of

1. a term limit which keeps him from running for that particular office again,
2. losing an election, or
3. the elimination of the official's office, but who continues to hold office until the end of the official's term."

So definition 1 would fit the assertion that Bush is a "Lame Duck". Plus, the fact that he has to deal with an assertive and hostile legislature, that has absolutely no desire for more armed conflicts really limits his ability to get anything done.

Why do there have to be Islamic eyes, versus other eyes?

It eludes me.

If people would only come to realize that organized religions are only there to control you by your fear of the unknown.

How very sad!

To "to Godfrey"

Boy, once you get on a hobby horse, you don't look around, do you? Did you read anything I said?

Victoria,

You need to get out your dictionary. "Lame duck" refers to a president after another president has been elected, but before he's sworn in.

victoria fyi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

godfrey- the term 'lame duck in the water- shortened to lame duck, actually describes ANY president in the last 2 years of office if he is in his second term.

it was used to describe clinton, and is not wishful thinking, just an accepted term.

"Many Muslim individuals have fallen under a veil of tyranny, silence, and intimidation in their own communities."

Thank you for your measured response. First let me digress a bit and tell you how I felt at reading it; actual happiness. Not because I think I convinced you or that I think you are starting to see the light or anything, but because you made that distinction between "Muslims" who are extremists and the religion itself. The video link you posted, and your own comment "To step out from under that veil is to step into the "cross hairs", I believe enforces my point. Moderate Muslims, like myself, find ourselves waging a two fold battle. Not only must we speak out against the tyranny of this violent minority, but we must also speak out against the vitriol that is sent our way by those in the West. Not only do we find ourselves in "crosshairs" but also in a "crossfire" (starting to sound like the Chrysler line up here...). I would love to talk about reform and social and cultural change, but I always find myself getting drawn into these pointless exchanges over "Muhammadans" and "Islam is a cult" blah blah blah.

There are two questions that need to be answered by non-Muslims criticizing Islam:

1. Do you believe that there are moderate Muslims ?
2. Why would an attack on Islam, and not on "extremist Muslims" specifically, not also be an attack on moderates who are fighting the same war?

When people toss slurs at Islam, they are also throwing slurs at my (moderate Muslims) faith, my upbringing and my family. The result is that most moderates end up trying to combat the negative perceptions and stereotypes amongst non-Muslims, instead of focusing their entire energies on reform.

The extremists take the slurs as just one more way to brainwash their followers into believing that non-Muslims (and specifically the West) are out to "get Islam". The West needs to get on the side of the moderates and start distinguishing between Islam and extremist Muslims.

After watching the video, I was scrolling through the comments and wanted to engage some of the Muslim posters over issues in the clip, but after reading some of the anti-Islam comments my blood was boiling and I just gave up; lest I be drawn into the vitriol. In the poisonous atmosphere that existed, no reason would have been listened to.

That is the tragedy of the moderates in Islam right now. I believe that is the point Dr. Ahmed was trying to make.

We have seen what happened after 911 (was that enough to "rouse America from its stupor"?) a just war against a hateful enemy (Taliban and AlQaeda) led to an unjust invasion that has resulted in 160000 dead at least. Whats interesting is that both the just and the unjust war are now in danger of being a complete loss with America turning tail and withdrawing. In a scenario like this, Bush could have 4 more years and probably still not do anything. He's having problems getting funding for the existing Iraq fiasco and you think that he is going to "nuke" the Muslim world? Oh and Hillary and Byrd introduced that bill to revoke his war authorization. America is not going to be doing any more rousing for a long time now, and Islam is not going anywhere either, so the best thing is to sit down and talk to resolve the issues.

Of course if dreams of Minutemen cruising towards Muslim population centers will help you "hate better at night" then what can I say? I suppose time will tell. If in the next 20 months Bush actually manages to do something like what you suggest, I'll come back to this forum and admit I was wrong. But I have faith in the goodness of most Americans (and Muslims; American or other) that such a thing will not come to pass. So "sweet hating" till then to you.

I'm pleased to see we both cherish free speech and agree a bigot is not a terrorist.

"This discussion is about Islam and I am open to sharing ideas and thoughts over how to counter such men and their vile interpretations of our wonderful religion."

Many Muslim individuals have fallen under a veil of tyranny, silence, and intimidation in their own communities. To step out from under that veil is to step into the crosshairs. Censorship and violence are powerful tools, but sometimes you must walk to the edge of darkness to gain peace.

Here's a YouTube from Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPvuAg4HjI

Anonymous:

"You can keep living your fantasy that the U.S is going to turn the Muslim World into a "giant parking lot." "

That wasn't a fantasy. That was a warning not to count on the restraint of Americans. America will lie around in a self-satisfied stupor, but if you arouse her, she doesn't know when to stop. Ask Germany (unconditional surrender). Ask Japan. Ask Russia. (Did you know that, after the Russian Revolution, America invaded Russia and fought on Russian soil for two years? That they had fought clear across the continent to within sight of Moscow when Wilson finally called it off? Russia knows it, you can bet your pants.)

The "idiot in chief" has 20 months left in office. It's wishful thinking to call that "lame duck."

"We live in a society that values free speech. Even though I may not agree, I cherish their right to speak freely."

So now being presented with examples of hatred spouting "American Christians" you are off on a tangent of "cherishing free speech". If you had any intellectual honesty, you would at least drop your charade of "Western/Christian moral superiority" and agree to the capacity of all humans (regardless of race, religion and culture) to degenerate into hate mongers.

And I do cherish freedom of speech, until a line is crossed when harm or use of force on others is advocated and sanctioned. In the case of the people I mentioned and OBL, that line was crossed. In a civilized world, freedom does not equate anarchy nor, IMO, the advocacy of anarchy and hate, but I realize that many people would take issue with that viewpoint and that is fine.

"A bigot is not a terrorist."

And I never claimed that. Now if you would read my words carefully, I suggested that socio-economic factors and political instability have combined to give people like OBL the capacity and opportunity to bring about a physical manifestation of their hate.

Terror also exists when a community fears for justice, equality and safety in the face of profiling and hate speech such as that disseminated by the above mentioned "bigots".

"What gives a man, community, society real power?"

What society are you talking about? How is it structured? What are the socio-economic conditions in said society? What are the local and regional political dynamics? Finally, what "power" are you talking about?

"The answer to what is troubling you will not be found in more censorship and violence."

Ahh... so I am the person talking of censorship and violence, when all along my comments have been directed at people who cannot seem to grasp as simple a concept as "context"; directed at people who choose to use a word that is considered derogatory by a community, knowing full well members of that community are present in the forum; directed at people who spout threats of using nuclear weapons against all Muslims as a consequence of the actions of an extremist few. Yet you seem to think that I am the one looking for "answers" with more "violence" and "censorship". Or do you see the attempts at countering the misinformation, and selective interpretations and quotations from the Quran, by Muslims as "censorship"?

Let me make clear to you what I am looking for; a civil dialog and sharing of ideas between those who seek to understand or analyze Islam and the Islamic world, but when those you wish to have a dialog with show up spouting epithets, then there is no hope for true discourse.

I do not believe any religion is "evil" or "violent". What is evil and violent is mans heart . Are there men who have corrupted Islam and distorted its message to support their own prejudices, intolerance and hate? Yes, just as there are, and have been in history, those who have done the same with Christianity and Hinduism. But this discussion is about Islam and I am open to sharing ideas and thoughts over how to counter such men and their vile interpretations of our wonderful religion.

Anon:

"What they have in common is hate; hate for those who do not subscribe to their point of view."

We live in a society that values free speech. Even though I may not agree, I cherish their right to speak freely.

James Dobson, Ann Coulter, Osama Bin Laden, and Bill O'Reilly

"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong." I've known this since I was a child.

A bigot is not a terrorist.

"Unfortunately socio-economic factors and political instability have combined to provide those in the Muslim world the power to project their hate much further and hold entire nations hostage."

This is where your thought process comes apart. Please read your words over again slowly and I'll ask you 2 questions and end with a comment..

What gives a man, community, society real power?

What judgment awaits a man whose actions are inspired by hatred?

The answer to what is troubling you will not be found in more censorship and violence.

To Godfrey:

"Only one country has ever dropped a nuclear weapon in anger. Ask Japan how the United States takes to attacks on her soil."

You can keep living your fantasy that the U.S is going to turn the Muslim World into a "giant parking lot." The only person capable of taking such a step (The Idiot in Chief) is as lame duck as can be. He has the American military tied down and a hundred soldiers dying a month because of his lies. There are going to be no more invasions in the foreseeable future and with Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them, and under Saudi debt, you wont even be able to launch an attack on the country that most of the 911 hijackers came from.
So keep blustering and spreading your rabble rousing rubbish. There are more people in the Muslim world and America that would rather engage in dialog, than there are intolerant ignorant rednecks like you.

i think all americans were shocked and offended by the 3000 whose lives were senselessly ended by someone on one end of the earth, hating strangers at the other end- hating them enough to go to elaborate ends to murder them.

we should have aggressively and unceasingly gone after the offenders- osama bin laden and his ilk-

but we didnt, instead we allowed ourselves to be distracted while this administration turned that tragic event into a political opportunity to pick up where papa bush left off- and most silently absorbed the fear-mongering that the media foisted upon us-

was anyone offended when george bush walked hand in hand with prince abdullah of saudi arabia like 2 little schoolgirls 2 years ag?

use your intelligence and dont let yourselves be told how to feel.
as noted by zumzum, the intelligent ones ask questions- the stupid blindly accept what is told to them without examining it for truth or consistency.

divide and conquer isnt a new or even clever method- but it is very effective- and america- through not asking questions loudly enough- let itself be blindly trotted down a merry path to war with those not resonsible for the 911

the emotional response was at the ready- the anger was already in place- all they needed was to find the target to focus that despair on-

muslims arent the problem-

fundamentalist christians thinking they are going to holy war with fundamentalist muslims-

both self-righteously believing god is on their side and both equally violent and aggressive in their beliefs.

reasonable believers from both traditions have joined in their solidarity to protest the injustice of this war which is helping only those at the very top power elite-

while youre busy hating muslims, the new 'other'
your government is busy giving tax breaks to the top 1%, destroying social security- failing the education system- completely ignoring the 1 in 4 american citizens who dont have health care.
even miserably failing those very same soldiers who are in the fields fighting for the rights of the elite to make as much money as fast as they can before someone comes up with an alternative energy source-

deconstruction and criticism are the laziest intellectual responses to any problem.
the truly intelligent will try to craft solutions to those problems.

and the solution isnt allowing yourself to be distracted with hating someone you dont know-
identifying the problem is a start to the solution- and the problem isnt muslims-
it never was muslims, or hindus or jews.

the free floating rancor has anchored itself to the islamic religion

as long as youre all busy feeding into that- youre not busy asking questions that need to be asked.

Anonymous:

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread before responding. Mohammedans are offended by being called Mohammedans? I'm offended by Mohammedans flying airplanes into American buildings. I'm offended my mass murder of innocent American citizens. And I'm really offended by Mohammedan students at American colleges (guests in our country) dancing on the green to celebrate said mass murder. Ask me how much I care if they're offended.

Mo:

"Should I say that the ratio of people being killed by the West is 100 to 1 person killed by Muslims."

Yes, this is a thing al-Islam might want to keep in mind. Here's another:

Only one country has ever dropped a nuclear weapon in anger. Ask Japan how the United States takes to attacks on her soil.

Anonymous:

What's a Mohammedan? A follower of the Prophet Mohammed, of course. I'm surprised you would ask.

An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
http://www.atheists.org/Islam/mohammedanism.html

Muhammed"
http://www.atheists.org/Islam/Mohammed.html

Someone just mentioned 1.9 billion ppl follow this religion. After reading info in above URLs I understand why there is discrimination between 'Smart' ppl and 'Stupid' ppl -- 'Smart' ppl validate their beliefs through questions while 'Stupid' like those 1.9 billion get trapped by stupid books lik ethe Hadith etc.

What a pity!

The above was for "To anonymous".

What they have in common is hate; hate for those who do not subscribe to their point of view. What they have in common is their use of the media to propagate that hate in the guise of "anti-terrorism" or "preserving Christian America's Christian values" or "stopping evil America from destroying the Muslim world". Does not matter whether they ask for the "killing of Americans" or "curing the cancer that is Islam" (this comment I heard on Dobsons radio show) and how about "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (Coulter). Wow!! "killing", "forced conversions" amd invasions!

Perhaps you should stop trying to bend over backwards to prove that people in the West are somehow "too superior" to have bigots in their midst. We are all humans and we are all subject to the same human fallacies. There are hate mongers in every culture and society. Unfortunately socio -economic factors and political instability have combined to provide those in the Muslim world the power to project their hate much further and hold entire nations hostage. At their core however, these people are the same; vile, hateful intolerant beings.

"Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, Bob Dutko (here in "good ol Detroit"), to just name a few of the more "famous" ones.. and do you really need me to point out the bigots on this board.."

Do you really equate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson et al with Osama Bin Laden?

Bin Laden quotes:

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy."

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans
and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

In islam, the only unforgivable sin is 'shirk', which is setting up a god beside ALLAH and worshiping that as a god-
like the first commandment commands people to worship one god, and not have any other gods beside GOD, in islam we have the same imperative, but reinforced and magnified in importance.

Anything can be a distraction from god, such as money, or power, even art or music can consume a persons attentions to the degree that it detracts from or interferes with attentions due to ALLAH.

islam brought a new and fresh approach to god without intercessors or a hiearchal structure that had to be gone through to worship.

everyone in islam has the ability, indeed are exhorted to read the qur'an themsleves, interpret it themselves and approach ALLAH without the burden and interference of a priestly structure.

also- we are instructed to shun 'biddah'.
biddah is innovation, or adding things to our worship and practices, such as infusing local and cultural habits into our religion.

for instance, paul blended the cult of goddess worship in ephesus with young christianity to create a new cultic devotion to mary(blessings upon her), so that even today, 2000 years later, ephesus is a center of marian devotion- that is how strong this merger of the new christian worship and the existing worship of astarte is.
(even the word 'easter' is etymologically based on 'astarte'. that is how concrete th connection is.)

the wisdom of this injunction is that, today- some 1470 years later- i can go to any mosque in the world and will pray in the same way as indonesians, or turks, or saudis, and also the exact same prayer practice of our Prophet(peace and blessings upon him).

this has kept islam a pure, undefiled religion, uncorrupted by the additions and mixing of other traditions.

the sense of men not adding to what god has made a prefect form of worship is that strong.

we do not worship the prophet muhammad(pbuh).
period. we worship the god. end of story

the distinction of islam, and its universal accesible nature to all of mankind, is that it is NOT named after a person. so we are clearly and definitively NOT mahommedans.
we dont even say the name of our prophet(pbuh) or even refer to him with the general term of prophet, without adding peace and blessings of ALLA be upon him. we do this also, as you may have noticed- with other prophets, even the mother of the prophet Jesus(ata).

how could we have alot of people referring to us as mohammadens?

so its a combination of not accepting adulterations and keeping our religion in its pure and intended form-

christians, whose religion is named after christ- and buddhists for example- (just think of a religion) are named after people- christians worship Jesus(ata) we revere him and respect him so much that we will not even utter his name without adding a prayer of blessing after it- but we dont worship Muhammad(pbuh) or any saint or man.
we worship only the one true god.

the term mohammedism is an invention of christians misunderstanding this very seminal and basic aspect of our committment to keep our religion undefiled by additonal traditions and as close as possible to the original.

we have been successful in this precisely because we vociferously reject such appellations and add ons.

we reject others defining us by their own standards and concepts, as we are fully capable and articulate enough to define ourselves.

as in the term n****r (which i will not say or utter this despicable term) the word itslef is a bastardization of another word, imposed ON a people to define them in a perjorative fashion.

mohammedism is also a perversion of and an imposition of a concept in a denigrating sense by those who disliked and feared muslims-

the idea of not falling to the (what we consider mistake) worship of any man (such as the abundance of statues and images of Jesus(ata)
that has infiltrated the christian religion is one muslims will not bear in our worship of only ALLAH

that is why we do not make ANY images of our Rasul(pbuh)- because of human nature to worship images and icons.

if there are no icons there can be no breach of this most important aspect of our religion.

the dutch are well aware of this, and completely cognizant of the reaction it would bring in the muslim community, that is what makes their actions so especially insidious and their intentions so inflammatory.

we are muslims, those who submit to the will of ALLAH.

we are adherents of the religion islam- which means surrender or submission to ALLAH, and also from the syriac aslama , which means peace.

we will strongly and continually choose to define ourselves.
peace

"Oh come on! Now you are equating the word "Mohammedan" with the word ni***r used for African-Americans? Do you really think it is a fair comparison?"

I am responding to the comment "what's in a name". I am not suggesting that "Mohammedan" has even close to the negative connotations of the N-word, just that history and historical events can endow mere "words" a lot of power and emotion, and you cannot deny that "ni**er" has a lot of negative emotion and history attached to it. At the very least "Mohammedan" is an inaccurate invention by people who had no idea of what Islam was, that much has been pointed out. Mutual respect and civility would deem that such a term of description not be used. Also, as I mentioned before, the word has attained a derogatory connotation due to its use, historically, by the colonizing and occupying forces of the West, thereby imbuing it with the power to offend (as does the N-word when used by White people) Muslims when used by non-Muslims.

Oh come on! Now you are equating the word "Mohammedan" with the word ni***r used for African-Americans? Do you really think it is a fair comparison?

"Muslims reject the title because it implies... how insecure is that? What's in the name, dude?"

Personally I do not consider it offensive, but I do consider it completely inaccurate and a remnant of an age when large parts of the Muslim world were colonized and occupied.

Would you also tell African Americans that they should just get over the word "ni**er"? No matter what commonsense tells you about "whats in a name", history and historical events do lend power and emotion to things as innocuous as a word.

"Honestly, it is only semantics..."

How many people go around calling Christians "Biblicans" or "Testamentarians" or something? "Mohammadan" is an invention of Western historians and has nothing to do with Islam. Honestly, if you cannot even show the civility to address a community by their "proper" name and deliberately choose to use a word coined by people outside the community, a word that over time has come to be considered derogatory, then why be surprised when any discussion over Islam regresses to the kind of rabble rousing rubbish on this board.

As far as the people who were offended by the cartoons, and I am not defending the few who rioted, but lets suppose the much, much larger majority of moderates who were just "offended", it is not a case of "worshiping Mohammed", it is a sign of respect for him as God's messenger and Prophet. Some neo-cons would be offended if you criticized Bush, does that mean they worship him?

"An out-dated and extremely offensive word coined by orientalists to describe Muslims. Muslims reject this title since it implies they worship Muhammad, instead of The One God."

Muslims reject the title because it implies... how insecure is that? What's in the name, dude?

Well, if Muslims do not "worship" Mohammed, why the uproar over his cartoons? Why the uproar over depicting him in an allegedly insulting manner? Would that not count as "worship"? Honestly, it is only semantics...and it is about time muslims stop being so damn hypersensitive and paranoid about these trivial things. Maybe that, and that alone, would go a long way in changing the world's perception about the nature of Islam being practised today!

"Mohammedan is someone who follows the religion given by Prophet Mohammed. Another name for Muslims...a synonym, if you will!"

The term Mohammedan implies a worship of Mohammad, which is why it is considered offensive by Muslims and rejected as a description. In Islam Mohammad was nothing but an ordinary human who was a prophet and messenger for God. The term was coined by outsiders who had no understanding of the religion and cast it in the same light as "Christianity" and "Christians".

From www.ucis.pitt.edu/ceris/docs/Glossary.rtf

"An out-dated and extremely offensive word coined by orientalists to describe Muslims. Muslims reject this title since it implies they worship Muhammad, instead of The One God."

The ignorance is astounding, only surpassed by the eagerness to label Islam and Muslims based on choice selections of verses from the Quran and the actions of an extremist few.

Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, Bob Dutko (here in "good ol Detroit"), to just name a few of the more "famous" ones.. and do you really need me to point out the bigots on this board... go through and read the posts.

Lori:
OK, no name calling, no incendiary terms, no accusations of hate. One simple question:

Name one Islamic country in the world where non-muslims, male and female, are equal to Muslims, where they can practice their religion freely, study freely, publish their ideas freely, and walk down the street safely wearing crosses or stars of David or whatever other symbols they wish .

Contrast that with the many thousands of mosques, Islamic schools, islamic papers and websites all over the West, many government supported by tax breaks and other means.

Come on Islamophiles, name one such country.

Posted May 1, 2007 7:22 PM

Lori, asked the question on May 1, 2007 which country has tolerance for other religions besides its own majority Islamic Religion.

I would submit the name(s) of Tunisia (and possibly Morocco)in North Africa as that/those countries. I have lived here in Tunisia (and visited and worked in Morocco) for over thirty years. In this time I have worshipped in mosques, Jewish synagogues, Christian (Catholic and Protestant churches, Greek and Russian orthodoxe churches. I have friends, colleagues, former students and family members from all these major religions right here in Tunisia.

There is a place on earth where tolerance of religions is practiced by a non-sectarian state upheld by its own laws. It's right here in Tunisia. Come and see for yourselves.

"Only goes to show that Osama Bin Laden and his fellow bigots have plenty of company on the other side of the divide."

Fascinating comment. You say "plenty of company" -please name only 2 or 3.

Mohammedan is someone who follows the religion given by Prophet Mohammed. Another name for Muslims...a synonym, if you will! Some people do not like the use of this term to denote muslims though I fail to see why. It is a pretty accurate descrition of the followers of Islam.

Te baines:

"Muslims are extremely conceited if they think we non-Muslims spend all our time worrying about them."

LOL. Right, the Patriot Act, profiling, special registration of Muslim immigrants, oh my gosh.. those were directed at Muslims?!!! The hateful bigotry, prejudice and racism displayed by the majority of posters on this board.. right no one is really paying much attention to Muslims are they? Not that I care for this kind of "attention". Just like the African slaves probably never cared much for the attention of the kind bestowed by the KKK. Quite enlightening, seeing this side of the "noble" and "tolerant" West...
Only goes to show that Osama Bin Laden and his fellow bigots have plenty of company on the other side of the divide.

Secular:

"The people who claim that a statement is taken out of context have the burden to provide the context, just claiming it is taken out of context is not enough."

So what statement would you like clarification on? It is also not alright to go around accusing an entire group of people, incorrectly, of being murderers and liars. Perhaps there would be more discussion and dialog on these forums if people first asked Muslims to clarify the translations they come across that seem hateful instead of poisoning the debate from the get go with comments such as those that have been posted. You cannot have a discussion if you come to the table yelling epithets and demonizing the other side; try civility for a change and see where you get.

"It also begs the question, if as claimed Quran is supposed to be very simple to understand (given Mohamed was only semi-literate) how is it that so many people take these out of context."

So the Quran is supposed to be simple to understand for someone who cannot speak Arabic?
Your statement beggars belief. And even when somone who speaks Arabic reads the Quran, how can you state with a straight face that reading only one sentence out of a paragraph is supposed to somehow not result in an out of context translation. Refer again to "using deadly force against someone" without taking into account the fact that the statement refers only to actions taken in self defense as a last resort. Truly ludicrous, this opinion of yours.

Godfrey:

What on earth is a Mohammedan? Please cast not further light upon your colonial, imperialist ignorance..

Mike:

"Freedom means right to choose or not to choose any faith. It also means right to discard one faith and embrace any other. Koran prescribes death to Muslims to leave Islam.

In short you can come in but cannot leave, Mr. Ahmed, do you agree with this Koranic punishment?"

Well he cannot agree with it since your statement is incorrect as it is NOT a Quranic punishment. And the avalanche of out of context translations of the Quran continues..

With your logic you could also argue that U.S law allows you to kill anyone.. wait its only in self defense as a last resort isn't it..

ps- infidel is a word used by the crusaders to describe muslims in the holy land- it comes from the latin infidelis and is not a word used by muslims for anything-
it never was, and the weatern mix-up of kafir and infidel is just that- a mix up-
kafir means one who has been instructed in islam, and REJECTS it- or (in the case of ms. hirsi) COVERS UP the truth of it and misrepresents it-
it is actually a verb that is also used to describe the actions of a farmer when he COVERS UP or CONCEALS his seed with soil.

and since i was born here in america, as were my great great times 8 grandparents, i have no intention of leaving.

this sounds like the old racist america love it or leave it- i, for one, am certainly not going to GIT OUT

what silliness to freely discriminate in the most xenophobic of terms, and think that represents america.

well, the proponents of anger have had their say-
i posted this elsewhere and liked it so ill repost-

2, i dont know you- i dont like or dislike you- and i certainly am not expending the energy to hate a name posted on a blog-
i dont have any feelings about you -
think what you want, its not my business-
probably you in your experience encounter alot of radical people because you have a radical view-
i dont recognize many of the names here- but ive been pretty vociferous AND articulate in my condemnation of hatred or violence espoused in the name of islam-
if someone wants to hate- they will-
no amount of reason will change that-
its also pretty silly to find examples of haters from any religion as post them as representative-
so i dont do that-
i can post links(as ive done) you wont read them-
i can speak eloquently and articulately and reasonably,but if the tone is anathema to what you want to believe to justify your hatred, your heart will make you try to deconstruct it to prove your own hatred-

so theres no point to arguing-
Islam is overwhelmingly a system that trumps negative behavior before it can be undertaken-

islam is a religion that proposes peace, and ways to live peacefully-

the real issues are never discussed- how it applies in society-
what is the christian or atheist deterrant to violence?
they havent even gotten to the point where they have postulated on these things-

what do you do with a murderer or rapist or thief?
how do you conduct yourself in war?
the geneva convention, while its borrowed a myriad of points from islam, still falls far short of the codes of war in islam- in islama combatant, if they cry peace- is not to be molested in any way- they are to be fed as the soldiers are- treated humanely- even released if they give only their WORD that they will cease hostilities-

there are many comprehensive concepts in islam for the protection of society and its weakest members-
while western philosophy is saying everyone is free to do whatever they want- the freedom of the individual eclipses the good of society in many instances-
there is no recognition of human nature in this concept- if you want something- take it-

how is that superior to the philosophy of taking into consideration how ones selfsih actions will impact their society as a whole?
its all a cleanup mentality- when something happens that is truly heinous to its members, THEN there is a short lived attention given to the problem- and quickly conceived short term solutions t make it appear that it has been rectified-
how about this- our creator is already aware of our weaknesses and abilities to corrupt any good thing- and has given us a guide to deter bad behaviors- and a balance of good for individual and for society at large-

there is no extremism allowed in islam-
a man who spent all his time worshiping in the mosque was asked by Muhammad(peace be upon him)how his family was getting along with him being in the mosque all the time, and was chided for his extreme worship! and told his wife has rights over his time and energies and he must fulfil them-

balance and moderation even in worship

reason is supposed to prevail- one is not exhorted to blindly follow ones angers or passions at all-
those who do this, are not practicing the precepts of islam- which calls for moderation in all things-

man has subjected man (and especially women) to their detriment throughout history-

1400 years before my grandmother could own property muslim women have a right to their own protected property-
1400 years before african americans could even vote or be considered more than 3/5 of a human being- islam demanded that all humans be as equal as the teeth of a comb-
why do you think african american men in prison flocked to islam in the 20th century?

because it gave them license to kill the white man? NO
because it recognized their god-given status as fully worthy members of the human race-

do we see militant islamist coming from the ranks of the nation of islam today?
NO- warith deen, the son of its founder elijah extols a movement away from the extremism of NOI, towards mainstream and egalitarian islam-
a call to TRUE islam that appeals to the sense of rightness in peoples hearts.
certainly there are political and social misfits who try to justify their own wrong actions with their religion- but the core of their ambitions lies with their own disenfranchisement- not with their study of islam and its application-

in islam we have 2 exhortations to peace in our lives- one is as an individual to be forebearing and patient and hold our peace even in the face of aggression-
the other is as a society there is no allowance for aggression towards our neighbors- the pre-emptive strike being a peculiar and non-islamic idea-
only in the defensive mode is one allowed to protect ones home or faMILY, AND THEN WHEN THE AGGRESSOR CEASES- WE MUST IMMEDIATELY CEASE-

THESE ARE THE PRECEPTS OF ISLAM- IF ONE TRANSCENDS THEM- HE OR SHE IS NOT ACTING ISLAMICALLY-
oops= caps-
well, thats enough for now-
as for your contention that i must surely repay your hatred with more hatred, that would be inerrant and unislamic behavior on my part-

i must instead bear with patience any misinformation or slander and counter it with information and gentleness

i am really really not of the same philosophy that evil cannot be recounted with kindness-
as i have quelled many a savage breast with a kind word in my life-
when people are in extreme situations, they enact extreme responses-

suicide is completely and unequivocally against the precepts of islam-
it is a 20th century phenomenon and was actually invented by the irishman collins-
the real question is, what are the infringements upon those who feel compelled to take such desperate actions-
remove the impetus for the actions-
concentrate on the rights of all humans-not just those with heavy pockets-
islam already calls for this to be the path-
hatred of the other is the problem here- not in any way a solution-
it is a self perpetuating cycle that has not had any success in history and a foolish way to conduct oneself
also, such a call to hatred denudes one of the right to criticize anyone else who hates.

so, as a muslim, i have to denounce both the abuse of islam by the proponents of violence-
and the verbal and emotional abuse compounding the problem by reciprocating hatred.
peace

Lori, let is roll!

"Right now the Muslims are reproducing the most, and willing to fight the hardest. What military and economic advantage the West has reaped as the fruits of enlightenmment and democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, regardless of what use they are likely to put it to. Oil wealth permits Islam to buy what they need."

I just watched a CNBC on the money video called the Warren Buffet of Arabia….Alwaleed Bin Talal is a billionaire and the largest single investor in the U.S. and it made me wonder where did he get all the money from….ha-ha…..his money came from the West. While the West is debating and analyzing and hand-wringing Muslims are buying the future off under the feet of the next generation with your own money. People are being killed and beheaded in the West because they dare to take a stand against the Islamic threat. Those graduating college are loaded with debt and are uncertain about their future.

The West is benefiting the morally corrupt lawbreakers and crippling the human potential with social welfare programs. Under the guise of tolerance and the twisted multiculturalism hand-picked Muslims get rewarded for fraud and deception and can claim posh positions in high places and come and tell us what to think.

Bashing Christianity as a degenerate religion but bowing down to unknown Gods is the beginning of the End.

One question people need to start asking themselves is why these Muslims are all so eager to come and live among the infidels in the first place…..why don’t they stay in their country and demand the changes that they want. I know but I am keeping my silence and let some other folks use their brain and think for a second.

i would like to see the raw data for that field survey, is it posted anywhere? can we see a list of questions and answers? were they a b c type or yes or no type? did you keep tract of the demographics of the responders? were the questions asked in the language of the people questioned or did they use an interpreter? could others hear the answers of other members of the pool, or was it secret?

Mr. Akbar Ahmed

Muslims are extremely conceited if they think we non-Muslims spend all our time worrying about them. We give them no more time than we give the criminal operating in the next town. It is true that non-Muslims will cross the street if we see a Muslim coming down the street towards us but we will do the same if we see the criminal coming down the street. It is called self-preservation. Once both have gone past us we get on with our lives.

The reason for the general repulsion Muslims generate is more because of the way Muslims respond to questions about Islam and Muhammad than because of the violence that some Muslims indulge.

An example is the sexual relations Muhammad had with children: Aisha ( 9 years old) and Maria, Rayhana, Juwariya and Saffiya all of whom were between the ages of 15 and 17. Except for Maria Muhammad had the other three widowed and then promptly began to have sex with them. Aisha was six when he married her and 9 when he took her virginity. he was then approaching 60 and had established a pattern of preferring of having sex with children.

Maybe he was a pedophile or maybe he was trying to lift his flagging libido. There were no political reasons for the relationships with Maria, Rayhana, Juwariya and Saffiya of whom he married Juwariya and Saffiya, both Jews, after they becam